FEMA.gov - Eligibilityhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility
frInterim Sheltering Costs for Hurricane Katrina Evacueeshttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219628
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">City of San Jose</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">3248-EM-CA</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">7</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-09-14T04:00:00-04:00">Friday, September 14, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">085-68000-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span><strong><span>Citation</span>:</strong><span> </span>FEMA-3248-EM-CA, City of San Jose, Interim Sheltering Costs for Hurricane Katrina Evacuees, PW 7</span></span></p>
<h1><strong><span><span><span>Cross</span></span></span></strong></h1>
<h1><span><span><span><strong>Reference</strong><span>:</span></span></span></span><span><span><span> </span></span></span><span><span><span><span> </span><span> </span></span><span>Sheltering Costs</span></span></span></h1>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Summary:</span></strong><span> </span>On February 26, 2007, FEMA approved Project Worksheet (PW) 7 for actual costs of $27,692 incurred by the City of San Jose (Applicant) for sheltering Hurricane Katrina evacuees.<span> </span>The PW was written as a small project at 40% complete.<span> </span>On July 19, 2010, the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) delivered the Applicant’s Final Inspection Report to FEMA and recommended final eligible funding of $27,692 because the Applicant did not request a Net Small Project Overrun.<span> </span>On October 22, 2010, the Applicant submitted its first appeal and requested that the PW be amended to a large project and requested additional funding in the amount of $410,629 for costs associated with debit cards, furniture purchase and delivery, and housing rentals.<span> </span>In response to the first appeal on November 18, 2011, FEMA approved additional funding in the amount of $167,154 based on documentation not previously submitted by Cal EMA.<span> </span>FEMA determined that $243,475 was not eligible due to the lack of supporting documentation, duplication of payments, and work being performed after the established deadline of March 1, 2006 for funding interim sheltering costs.<span> </span>On February 7, 2012, the Applicant submitted a second appeal and reiterated its request for funding in the amount of $243,475.<span> </span>The Applicant did not provide new information or supporting documentation for the costs claimed in its second appeal.<span> </span>Cal EMA does not support the Applicant’s second appeal.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Issues</span>:<span> </span></strong><span>1)</span> Is the supporting documentation provided by the Applicant sufficient to justify the claimed costs?</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>2) Are costs for sheltering Hurricane Katrina evacuees eligible after the deadline established for the Section 403 Interim Sheltering Program?</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Findings</span></strong>:<span> </span>1)<strong> </strong><span>No.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>2) No.</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Rationale</span></span><span>:<span> </span></span></strong><span>Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act Section 403; Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.225 <strong>Emergency Work</strong>; Disaster Specific Guidance (DSG) <em>Conversion of Assistance - 403 to 408</em> dated March 26, 2006; Disaster Specific Guidance, <em>Hurricane Katrina and Rita Transitional Housing Strategy</em>, dated November 14, 2005.</span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span>September 14, 2012</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Mr. Mark Ghilarducci</span></span><br /><span><span><span>Secretary</span></span></span><br /><span><span><span>California Emergency Management Agency</span></span></span><br /><span><span><span>3650 Schriever Avenue</span></span></span><br /><span><span><span>Mather, California<span> </span>95655</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeal–City of San Jose, PA ID 085-68000-00, <span>Interim Sheltering Costs for Hurricane Katrina Evacuees</span>, FEMA-3248-EM-CA, Project Worksheet 7</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Dear Mr. </span>Ghilarducci<span>:</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated April 4, 2012, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of San Jose (Applicant).<span> </span>The Applicant is appealing the decision of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to deny funding for sheltering expenses for evacuees from Hurricane Katrina in the amount of $243,475.</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Background</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>After Hurricane Katrina, the State of California agreed to accept evacuees from the impacted areas in Louisiana.<span> </span>As part of that effort, the Applicant provided assistance, resources and short-term interim sheltering to the evacuees.<span> </span>On February 26, 2007, FEMA approved Project Worksheet (PW) 7 for actual costs of $27,692 for the provision of affordable housing location services, employment services, and transportation for Hurricane Katrina evacuees.<span> </span>The PW was written as a small project at 40% complete and noted that the Applicant’s contract with the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley had a not-to-exceed amount of $87,228.<span> </span>On July 19, 2010, the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) forwarded the Applicant’s Final Inspection Report (FIR) to FEMA with a recommendation to limit funding for the project at $27,692 because the Applicant did not request a Net Small Project Overrun within sixty days of completion of the project.<span> </span>In a letter dated August 17, 2010, FEMA identified final eligible funding of $27,692 and noted that it considered the project closed.</span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>First Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>On October 22, 2010, the Applicant submitted its first appeal to Cal EMA and requested additional funding in the amount of $410,629 for costs associated with debit cards, furniture </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>purchases and delivery, and housing rentals.<span> </span>In its appeal, the Applicant asserted that it was not</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>informed that PW 7 had been approved as a small project.<span> </span>In its transmittal letter to the Regional Administrator, Cal EMA stated that the Applicant had requested funding in the amount of $438,422, with supporting documentation, in a letter dated May 21, 2007.<span> </span>However, Cal EMA further stated that this documentation was not forwarded to FEMA.<span> </span>In response to the first appeal, the Regional Administrator approved PW 7 as a large project and approved additional funding in the amount of $167,154.<span> </span>The Regional Administrator determined that the remaining $243,475 was not eligible due to the lack of supporting documentation, duplication of payments to vendors, and work being performed after the established deadline of March 1, 2006, for Section 403 interim sheltering costs for Hurricane Katrina evacuees.</span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Second Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>On February 7, 2012, the Applicant submitted a second appeal to Cal EMA and reiterated its request for funding in the amount of $243,475.<span> </span>The Applicant did not provide new information or supporting documentation for the costs claimed in its second appeal.<span> </span>The Applicant asserted that FEMA did not request additional supporting documentation until December 30, 2010, and that records from several contractors were no longer available.<span> </span>The Applicant also claimed that it was not adequately notified of the deadline for work to be performed related to sheltering of evacuees.<span> </span>Cal EMA does not support the Applicant’s second appeal.</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span><span>Discussion</span></span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>The Applicant states that it was not adequately notified of the deadline for work related to sheltering of evacuees.<span> </span>Cal EMA provided a copy of its letter to the Applicant dated April 12, 2006, forwarding FEMA’s Disaster Specific Guidance (DSG) <em>Conversion of Assistance - 403 to 408</em> dated March 26, 2006.<span> </span>Further Cal EMA’s letter reiterated, “ that the deadline for the termination of Public Assistance (PA) funded leases was March 31, 2006, and noted that with very few exceptions, FEMA would not reimburse any PA funded leases that extend beyond April 30, 2006.”<span> </span>The deadline of March 1, 2006, for funding costs associated with housing rentals and furniture purchases and delivery under Section 403 interim sheltering was established in Disaster Specific Guidance dated November 14, 2005, <em>Hurricane Katrina and Rita Transitional Housing Strategy</em>.<span> </span>Therefore, the Applicant’s sheltering expenses in the amount of $83,557 incurred after the deadline are not eligible for reimbursement under the PA Program.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>On December 29, 2010, FEMA requested invoices to substantiate the claimed costs and eliminate any duplicate claims.<span> </span>The Applicant responded in a letter dated April 7, 2011, stating that records and invoices from several of its contractors were no longer available and therefore, it could not provide the requested information.<span> </span>In accordance with 44 CFR §13.36(i)(11), <strong>Procurement</strong>, <em>Contract provisions</em>, Applicants must include a provision in their contractual agreements requiring contractors to retain all required records for three years after grantees or subgrantees make final payments.<span> </span>The Applicant submitted its Project Completion and Certification Report to Cal EMA on January 14, 2009.<span> </span>Cal EMA forwarded it to FEMA on July 19, 2010.<span> </span>Applicant expenses totaling $159,918 could not be validated due to insufficient documentation; therefore, these expenses are not eligible for funding under the PA Program.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Conclusion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.<span> </span>Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.</span></span></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision.<span> </span>This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, <strong>Appeals</strong>.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Sincerely,</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>/s/<span> </span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Deborah Ingram</span></span></span><br /><span><span><span>Deputy Associate Administrator</span></span></span><br /><span><span><span>Office of Response and Recovery</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>cc:<span> </span>Nancy Ward</span></span></span><br /><span><span><span><span> </span>Regional Administrator</span></span></span><br /><span><span><span><span> </span>FEMA Region IX</span></span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219628 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219628#commentsReliant Park Repairhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219599
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/documentation" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Documentation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/work-eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Work Eligibility</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Harris County</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">FEMA-1791-DR</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2372, 3052, and 6943</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-07-17T04:00:00-04:00">Tuesday, July 17, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">020-99201-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><strong><span>Citation:</span></strong> FEMA-1791-DR-TX, Harris County, Eligible Work, Project Worksheets (PWs) 2372, 3052, and 6943</span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Cross-</span></strong></span><br /><span><strong><span>Reference:</span></strong> Eligible Work, Documentation</span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Summary:</span></strong> During Hurricane Ike, high winds and flying debris damaged buildings in the Reliant Park complex. The Harris County Sports &amp; Convention Corporation operates the Reliant Park complex under a lease agreement with Harris County (Applicant). FEMA prepared PW 2372 in the amount of $105,235 for replacement of 1,014 square yards of Reliant Center carpeting, PW 3052 for $3,579,283 for replacement of five of Reliant Stadium’s ten fabric roof panels, and PW 6943 for $411,720 for interior and exterior damage to Reliant Stadium. The Applicant appealed these PWs, requesting increases to each of the scopes of work.</span></p>
<p><span>The first appeals are as follows:</span></p>
<ul><li><span>The Applicant appealed FEMA’s determination regarding PW 2372 on April 27, 2009, arguing that all carpeting in the Reliant Center was irreparably damaged. To support the appeal, the Applicant submitted letters from contractors expressing the consensus opinion that the carpeting had, and would continue to deteriorate beyond the areas that had been identified by FEMA through visual inspection as damaged. As a result, the Applicant requested FEMA approve replacement of 3,400 square yards of carpet for an additional $845,848. FEMA denied the Applicant’s appeal on January 27, 2010. FEMA determined that the function and capacity of the Reliant Center could be restored without replacing carpeting that was not damaged, and the support provided by the Applicant did not prove that the additional work was required as a direct result of the event.</span></li>
<li><span>The Applicant appealed FEMA’s determination regarding PW 3052 on May 15, 2009, arguing that the remaining 5 fabric roof panels needed to be replaced. To support the appeal, the Applicant submitted documentation from contractors, which stated that the remaining fabric panels may have been compromised by the event. As a result, the Applicant requested an additional $1,912,045 to replace these panels. FEMA denied the Applicant’s appeal on December 10, 2010. FEMA concluded that the Applicant did not submit documentation to substantiate the claim that the condition of the fabric was compromised as a direct result of Hurricane Ike.</span></li>
<li><span>The Applicant appealed FEMA’s determination regarding PW 6943 on June 25, 2009, asserting that the scope of work identified by FEMA did not include the full damage to the Stadium and requested an additional $3,327,947 in funding. The Applicant’s request included repairs for both interior and exterior systems. FEMA partially granted the Applicant’s appeal on September 20, 2010. The Regional Administrator granted costs of $48,003 for safety and security, temporary services and utilities that were inadvertently omitted from the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) estimate. However, upon final review of the PW amendment, FEMA determined that these additional costs were covered by insurance. Otherwise, FEMA determined that the Applicant did not provide documentation demonstrating that the increase in scope was a direct result of the disaster.</span></li>
</ul><p><span> In the second appeals, the Applicant reiterated its position that the scopes of work were not sufficient to address all of the damage caused by Hurricane Ike. The Applicant provided additional documentation to support the second appeals; however, the Applicant did not provide evidence that demonstrates that the additional work was required as a direct result of the event.</span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Issue:</span></strong> Did the Applicant submit sufficient justification to support its request for a change to the approved scopes of work?</span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Finding:</span></strong> No.</span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Rationale:</span></strong> Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.223(a)(1), <strong>General work eligibility, </strong><em>General</em></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span>July 17, 2012</span></p>
<p><span>W. Nim Kidd, CEM</span><br /><span>Assistant Director for Emergency Management</span><br /><span>Texas Department of Public Safety</span><br /><span>P.O. Box 4087</span><br /><span>Austin, Texas 78773-0220</span></p>
<p><span>Re: Second Appeals–Harris County, PA ID 020-99201-00, <span>Reliant Park Repair</span>, </span><span>FEMA-1791-DR-TX, Project Worksheet (PWs) 2372, 3052, and 6943</span></p>
<p><span>Dear Chief Kidd,</span></p>
<p><span>This letter is in response to letters from your office dated June 16, 2010, December 14, 2010, and April 4, 2011, which transmitted the referenced second appeals on behalf of Harris County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $6,085,840 for repairs to facilities in the Reliant Park complex after Hurricane Ike.</span></p>
<p><span>As explained in the enclosed analysis, the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the requested increases in scopes of work for the permanent repair of the Reliant Center and Reliant Stadium were a direct result of the declared disaster. I have determined that the Regional Administrator’s decisions in the first appeals are consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeals.</span></p>
<p><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.206 <strong>Appeals</strong>.</span></p>
<p><span>Sincerely,</span><br /><span>/s/</span><br /><span>Elizabeth Zimmerman</span><br /><span>Deputy Associate Administrator</span><br /><span>Office of Response and Recovery</span><br /><span>Enclosure</span><br /><span>cc: Tony Robinson</span><br /><span> Acting Regional Administrator</span><br /><span> FEMA Region VI</span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><strong>Background</strong></span></p>
<p><span>On September 13, 2008, high winds and flying debris from Hurricane Ike damaged structures in the Reliant Park complex. The complex is operated by Harris County Sports &amp; Convention Corporation (HCSCC) through a lease agreement with Harris County (Applicant). Under this lease agreement, the Applicant is responsible for the costs of repair and emergency protective measures performed by HCSCC. Following the hurricane, HCSCC contracted with the Manhattan Construction Company (MCC), which subcontracted with various firms and vendors to complete the necessary repairs to the Reliant Center and Reliant Stadium. FEMA worked with Texas Division of Emergency Management (Grantee) and Applicant’s representatives to document damage caused by the event and develop scopes of work for emergency protective measures and permanent repairs to Reliant Park.</span></p>
<p><span>First, FEMA prepared PW 2372 on January 12, 2009, to document water damage to carpeting in the Reliant Center. Winds and debris from Hurricane Ike damaged the roof of the convention center, allowing rain to enter the building and saturate the carpeting. The carpet manufacturer conducted an assessment of the damage and concluded that the quality of the carpeting had been compromised. The manufacturer provided a report to HCSCC that recommended replacement of all existing carpeting for the reason that if the carpet was left in place it would continue to deteriorate. Upon inspection, FEMA found that the sections of the carpet fell into one of three categories: did not get wet as a result of the event; did get wet but was dried and showed no visible signs of damage; and got wet and damage was evident. At the time, the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that future damage would occur to those areas that did not get wet, or that did get wet but were dried and showed no signs of damage. Therefore, with PW 2372 FEMA approved replacement of 1,014 square yards of carpet where damage to the carpet was evident, and approved an estimated cost of $105,235, which included not only the eligible scope of work but direct administrative costs and a reduction of anticipated insurance proceeds.</span></p>
<p><span>Next, FEMA prepared PW 3052 to document damage to the fabric roof of the Reliant Stadium. The roof had ten main fabric panels laced with steel cables that, when tight, provided roof valleys for water drainage. Wind, rain and debris caused damage to five of these panels, which resulted in destruction of a portion of the roof. The final scope of work included replacement of the five damaged panels and associated fasteners, turnbuckles and valley hold downs, in addition to demolition and removal of the damaged panels. FEMA approved PW 3052 for $3,579,283, which included direct administrative costs and a reduction of anticipated insurance proceeds.</span></p>
<p><span>Finally, FEMA prepared PW 6943 to document other damage to the Reliant Stadium. The scope of work included repair of damage to insulation, drywall, acoustical ceilings, baseboard, glass and glazing; escalators and elevators; exterior lightning protection poles; roofing insulation (excluding the fabric and barrel roofing); exterior building skin; and window wall systems. The PW was approved for $411,720, including direct administrative costs and a reduction of anticipated insurance proceeds.</span></p>
<p><span><em>First Appeals</em></span></p>
<p><span>The Applicant filed first appeals for each of the PWs separately. During the first appeal processes, each of the appeals was addressed by FEMA individually. The approved amounts and the additional amounts requested under appeal for each PW are detailed in the table below.</span></p>
<table><tr><td>
<p align="center"><span><strong>Project Worksheet</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><span><strong>Project</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><span><strong>Approved Amount</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><span><strong>Appeal Amount</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><span><strong>Total Requested</strong></span></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td>
<p><span>PA-06-TX-1791-PW-02372</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><span>Reliant Center Carpet</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span>$105,235</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span>$845,848</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span><strong>$951,083 </strong></span></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td>
<p><span>PA-06-TX-1791-PW-03052</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><span>Reliant Stadium Fabric Roof</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span>$3,579,283</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span>$1,912,045</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span><strong>$5,491,328 </strong></span></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td>
<p><span>PA-06-TX-1791-PW-06943</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><span>Reliant Stadium Permanent Repair</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span>$411,720</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span>$3,327,947</span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span><strong>$3,739,667 </strong></span></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td>
<p align="center"><span><strong>Total</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span><strong>$4,096,238 </strong></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span><strong>$6,085,840 </strong></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="right"><span><strong>$</strong> <strong>10,182,078 </strong></span></p>
</td>
</tr></table><p><span>With regard to PW 2372, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s determination on April 27, 2009. In the appeal, the Applicant claimed that carpeting in the Reliant Center was saturated for 7 days, causing irreparable damage to the water based adhesive and resulting in staining that cannot be removed. The Applicant also asserted that the underlying flooring in the Reliant Center retained moisture, which resulted in further degradation of the carpet adhesive and backing. To support this appeal, the Applicant submitted letters from contractors expressing the consensus opinion that the carpeting had, and would continue to, deteriorate beyond the areas that had been identified by FEMA as damaged. As a result, the Applicant requested that FEMA approve replacement of an additional 3,400 square yards of carpet for a total of $845,848.</span></p>
<p><span>FEMA denied the Applicant’s appeal on January 27, 2010. The Regional Administrator noted that the supplemental information provided by the Applicant did not demonstrate that additional damage had been caused by the event. The supporting documentation did not demonstrate that Hurricane Ike had damaged the requested 3,400 square yards of carpet. Thus, FEMA determined that the function and the capacity of the Reliant Center could be restored without replacing carpeting that was not damaged.</span></p>
<p><span>With regard to PW 3052, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s determination on May 15, 2009, requesting that FEMA approve a change in scope and additional funding in the amount of $1,912,045 for repair of roof fabric that was compromised by the disaster. To support the appeal, the Applicant included a letter from MCC that asserted the approved scope of work did not include all of the damage caused by Hurricane Ike. The additional scope of work outlined by MCC included security services to maintain a safe work area while repairs took place; temporary electrical work to remove fabric and conduct permanent repairs; general contractor labor, materials and equipment; and replacement of the remaining five original panels as these panels may have been compromised by saturation from the event. At the time the appeal was filed, the Applicant had not submitted any evidence that the remaining fabric panels were over stressed or compromised in any way.</span></p>
<p><span>FEMA denied the Applicant’s appeal on December 10, 2010. In order to assess the condition of the fabric roof, FEMA requested copies of inspection reports conducted for the roof prior to the event, as well as analysis of the current condition of the fabric. FEMA also met face to face with the Applicant three times in February 2010 to discuss the information necessary to complete the appeal. At that time, the Applicant provided copies of roofing inspections conducted in 2007 and 2008, but a current assessment of the condition of the fabric was not provided. On May 4, 2010, FEMA notified the Grantee of the status of the request for information regarding the current condition of the fabric roof, and on June 7, 2010, received copies of the 2007 and 2008 inspection reports, but not an analysis of the current condition of the fabric. FEMA determined that the Applicant’s request for security services, temporary electrical support, supervision, and general contractor support were already included in the original PW by use of Cost Estimating Format (CEF) factors. FEMA concluded that the Applicant had not submitted documentation necessary to substantiate the claim that the condition of the fabric was compromised as a direct result of Hurricane Ike.</span></p>
<p><span>With regard to PW 6943, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s determination on June 25, 2009, stating that the scope of work identified by FEMA did not include repair of the full damage to Reliant Stadium and requested an additional $3,327,947 in funding. The Applicant explained that scope of work should be expanded to include additional repairs to the exterior skin, window wall system, an additional lightning protection pole, security services, temporary electrical work, general contractor support services, and the mechanized retractable roof assembly. On January 8, 2010, FEMA requested that the Applicant provide copies of reports referenced in the first appeal, specifically a roofing survey report, exterior cladding component report, and the current assessment of the retractable roof mechanism describing storm related damage. The Applicant submitted the requested reports to FEMA on June 7, 2010.</span></p>
<p><span>In a letter dated September 20, 2010, responding to the appeal, the Regional Administrator partially approved the Applicant’s appeal for $48,003 to add costs for safety and security and temporary services and utilities that were inadvertently omitted from the original CEF estimate; however, upon final review FEMA found the costs to be covered by anticipated insurance proceeds. Otherwise, FEMA determined that the Applicant did not provide documentation to support the remaining items in the request for an increased scope of eligible work. Specifically, FEMA found that the fourth lightning pole was not damaged and was not, therefore, eligible for replacement. Further, FEMA found that general contractor labor, materials, equipment, supervision and general conditions were included in the original CEF for PW 6943. Finally, FEMA found that reports submitted by the Applicant did not substantiate the claim that the event had damaged the mechanized roof assembly.</span></p>
<p><span><em>Second Appeals</em></span></p>
<p><span>As with the first appeals, the Applicant filed second appeals for each PW separately.</span></p>
<p><span>The Applicant filed a second appeal of PW 2372 on May 27, 2010. To support this appeal, the Applicant provided a letter from HCSCC, including photographs documenting the deteriorating condition of the carpet. HCSCC asserts that since Hurricane Ike, the carpeting has showed accelerated ripping, reoccurring stains, and fabric voids caused by shrinkage. The letter also notes that the carpet is discontinued, and that back-stock of the carpeting has run out so that existing carpeting can no longer be repaired.</span></p>
<p><span>The Applicant filed a second appeal of PW 3052 on March 8, 2011. In the appeal, the Applicant reiterates its position from the first appeal and did not submit any additional documentation.</span></p>
<p><span>The Applicant filed a second appeal of PW 6943 on January 13, 2011. In the appeal, the Applicant reiterates its claims from the first appeal. In support of the Applicant’s claim, the Grantee’s transmission letter to FEMA asserts that pre-storm maintenance logs show that only routine maintenance was required on Reliant Stadium. The Grantee argues that these records establish a baseline that demonstrates additional repairs to the stadium were required by the event. Further, the Grantee notes that the fourth lightning pole was replaced pursuant to local regulations and Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.226(d), <strong>Standards</strong>. The Grantee did not provide any evidence, such as current regulations, to support the claim that local regulations required replacement of the fourth lightning pole. The Grantee also transmitted a March 2009 report from the contractor who installed the original roof as support for the appeal.</span></p>
<p><span><strong>Discussion </strong></span></p>
<p><span>In accordance with 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1), <strong>General work eligibility</strong>, work must be a direct result of a declared event to be eligible for funding under FEMA’s Public Assistance Program. Furthermore, applicants must provide documentation that demonstrates that damage is a direct result of the declared disaster or emergency. With respect to PWs 2372, 3052, and 6943, the documentation provided by the Applicant did not prove that the requested modifications to the approved scopes of work are required as a direct result of Hurricane Ike. Regarding PW 2372, the Applicant provided photographs of damaged carpeting, but did not provide the locations of the damage nor sufficient support to prove that the damage to the carpeting was a direct result of Hurricane Ike. Regarding PW 3052, the Applicant did not provide the documentation necessary to support the claim that the 5 remaining fabric roof panels were compromised and required replacement. Regarding PW 6943, the Applicant did not provide documentation to support an increase in the scope of work beyond the increase in funding for security, temporary services, and utilities already provided from the first appeal. The documentation provided by the Applicant, including a March 6, 2009, inspection report by Uni-Systems, LLC that states “[t]he components of the bearing, axle, end cap and wheel do not show any unusual signs of damage due to static loading or wind damage due to Hurricane Ike,” do not demonstrate that the damage to the roofing system resulted from the declared event.</span></p>
<p><span><strong>Conclusion</strong></span></p>
<p><span>The documentation submitted by the Applicant did not demonstrate that the additional damage and associated work in excess of the approved eligible scopes documented on PWs 2372, 3052, and 6943 was a direct result of Hurricane Ike. Therefore, the additional costs are not eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance Program.</span></p></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219599 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219599#commentsAmbulance staging costshttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219593
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/emergency-protective-measures" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Emergency Protective Measures</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services, Inc.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">FEMA-1539/15</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">915, 183,193 &amp; 73</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-06-28T04:00:00-04:00">Thursday, June 28, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">000-UEGG4-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span><strong><span>Citation:</span></strong> <span> </span>FEMA--DR-FL; Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services, Project Worksheets (PWs) 915, 183, 193, 73</span></span></p>
<h3><span><span><span>Cross-</span></span></span></h3>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Reference:</span></strong><span> </span>Eligibility, Emergency protective measures </span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Summary:</span></strong><span> </span>In response to Hurricanes Charley (DR-1539), Frances (DR-1545) and Jeanne (DR-1561) in 2004, Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Service, Inc. (Applicant) provided emergency medical services to the citizens of Lake and Sumter counties.<span> </span>The State of Florida prepared PWs 915, 183, 193, and 73 to reimburse the Applicant for the incurred costs of staffing ambulances and equipment usage.<span> </span>During project closeout FEMA determined that the costs claimed by the Applicant were ineligible because the labor and equipment costs were identified as standby time. <span> </span>Additionally, the requested costs included costs that the Applicant had already billed patients and insurance providers.<span> </span>The Applicant appealed this determination with a letter dated April 22, 2010.<span> </span>The Applicant’s appeal noted that mandatory evacuations caused the Applicant to staff an emergency operations center.<span> </span>The Applicant also stated that having staged and ready to respond ambulances and labor is a salient step to protecting public health and safety. <span> </span>The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the appeal noting that a review of Ambulance dispatch logs revealed that the ambulances were not used for the full 24 hours, but spent time in the station in standby or out of service.<span> </span>The Applicant’s second appeal claims that the ambulance crews were performing eligible emergency protective measures while on call.<span> </span>The Grantee supported the appeal and clarified that when not responding to emergency calls, the crews were engaged in maintaining and inventorying supplies within the ambulance unit, training and upgrading skills, and traveling between various readiness locations.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Issue:</span></strong><span> </span>Does the documentation the Applicant submitted demonstrate that the ambulance crews were engaged in eligible emergency protective measures, such as the direct support of congregate shelters when not responding to emergency calls?</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Findings:</span></strong><span> </span>No.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Rationale:</span></strong><span> </span><span>44 CFR §206.225(a)(3)(i) <strong>Emergency Work. </strong></span></span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span>June 28, 2012</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Bryan W. Koon</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Director </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Florida Division of Emergency Management</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeals – Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services, Inc., PA ID 000-UEGG4-00, <span>Ambulance staging costs</span>,<span> </span>FEMA-1539-DR-FL, Project Worksheet (PW) 915; FEMA-1545-DR-FL, PWs 183 and 193; and FEMA-1561-DR-FL, PW 73</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Dear Mr. Koon,</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>This is in response to your May 16, 2011 letter, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services, Inc. (Applicant).<span> </span>The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of labor and equipment costs and is requesting approval of $184,205.</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Background</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>In response to Hurricane Charley (FEMA-1539-DR-FL), Hurricane Frances (FEMA-1545-DR-FL) and Hurricane Jeanne (FEMA-1561-DR-FL) in 2004, the Applicant provided ambulance services to an evacuation shelter and an emergency response center in Lake and Sumter Counties.<span> </span>FEMA prepared and obligated PW 915 under FEMA-1539-DR-FL, PWs 183 and 193 under FEMA-1545-DR-FL, and PW 73 under FEMA-1561-DR-FL for a total of $438,504 to document the Applicant’s overtime labor and equipment usage for emergency protective measures.<span> </span>During a final inspection in December 2009, FEMA discovered that the obligated amount included $178,732 for services that patients and insurance providers had paid the Applicant.<span> </span>FEMA also determined that the overtime labor and equipment usage costs associated with time spent in stand-by status were not eligible. <span> </span>FEMA deobligated $363,693 for the duplicated costs and the ineligible costs associated with force account labor and equipment in stand-by and down-time status that were not directly involved in the performance of emergency protective measures.</span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>First Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>The Applicant appealed this determination with three letters dated April 22, 2010 (FEMA-1539-DR-FL), March 22, 2010 (FEMA-1545-DR-FL), and April 19, 2010 (FEMA-1561-DR-FL).<span> </span>In the appeal letters, the Applicant asserted that the labor and equipment were not on standby but were pre-positioned in anticipation of the disaster.<span> </span>It further stated that having staged and ready to respond ambulances and labor is a prudent step in protecting public health and safety. <span> </span>The </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>FEMA Regional Administrator responded to the Applicant’s appeals with a letter dated September 9, 2010.<span> </span>The Regional Administrator explained that only the personnel and equipment costs for which the Applicant’s documentation demonstrates that the ambulances were utilized in the performance of emergency protective measures are eligible for reimbursement.<span> </span>In addition, the Regional Administrator indicated that the information provided by the Applicant showed that the requested costs included transportation and insurance expenses that were invoiced to patients and insurance providers.<span> </span>Section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) precludes FEMA from reimbursing any costs that have been billed to patients or insurance providers, even for bills that are unpaid.</span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Second Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>The Grantee forwarded the Applicant’s second appeal to FEMA on May 16, 2011. <span> </span>In the appeal the Applicant contended that FEMA policy failed to clearly articulate the on-duty and downtime guidelines for applicants.<span> </span>It further asserted that FEMA cited policies that were published after the event as the rationale for the eligibility determination on labor costs.<span> </span>The Applicant also claimed that emergency medical personnel and equipment were performing emergency protective measures while on call, and even when they were not engaged in other eligible work. <span> </span>In support of the appeal, the Grantee stated that when the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) crews were not responding to emergency calls, the crews were engaged in maintaining and inventorying supplies within the ambulance unit, training and upgrading skills, and traveling between various readiness locations.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Discussion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.225(a)(3)(i), <strong>Emergency Work</strong>, in order to be eligible, the work must “eliminate or lessen immediate threats to li[f]e, public health or safety.”<span> </span>When supporting the evacuation or repatriation of patients at congregate shelters, as a result of the declared incident, the activation, staging and use of ambulances constitute emergency protective measures.<span> </span>The Applicant has submitted additional documentation that demonstrates that personnel and ambulances were directly supporting congregate shelters in the amount of $54,535.<span> </span>The following table summarizes the eligible emergency protective measures associated with congregate shelters.<span> </span>The Applicant supported 16 congregate shelters, staged and used 14 Ambulances in support of the congregate shelters, and accrued 1,802 force account labor hours for 47 personnel in support of these congregate shelters. </span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Summary table of eligible costs </span></span></em></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<table><tr><td>
<p align="center"><strong><span><span>Eligible work</span></span></strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><span><span><strong>Eligible Costs</strong></span></span></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td>
<p><span><span>Force account labor in support of congregate shelters</span></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><span><span>$33,535</span></span></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td>
<p><span><span>Force account equipment-Ambulances in support of congregate shelters</span></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><span><span>$21,000</span></span></p>
</td>
</tr><tr><td>
<p align="center"><span><span><strong>Total</strong></span></span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center"><span><span>$54,535</span></span></p>
</td>
</tr></table><p><span> </span></p>
<p><span><span>However, activities such as training, downtime and inventory of supplies do not qualify as emergency protective measures and the Applicant’s second appeal provides no additional information to demonstrate that these costs represent eligible work.</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Conclusion </span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant’s costs in the amount of $54,535 for emergency protective measures in support of congregate shelters are eligible.<span> </span>Accordingly, I am partially granting the second appeal.<span> </span>By copy of this letter, I am informing the Regional Administrator of my determination in order for him to implement this decision.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision.<span> </span>This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, <strong>Appeals.</strong> </span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Sincerely,</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>/s/</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Deborah Ingram</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Assistant Administrator</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Recovery Directorate</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>cc:<span> </span>Major P. May</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span> </span>Regional Administrator</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span> </span>FEMA Region IV</span></span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219593 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219593#commentsApplicant Eligibilityhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219577
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/emergency-protective-measures" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Emergency Protective Measures</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Mount Sinai Medical Center</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">FEMA-1609-DR</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">9137</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-05-15T04:00:00-04:00">Tuesday, May 15, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">086-U7KTQ-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span><strong><span>Citation</span>:</strong><span> </span>FEMA-1609-DR-FL; Mount Sinai Medical Center; Applicant Eligibility, PW 9137 </span></span></p>
<h1><span><span><span>Cross - <span><span> </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>Applicant Eligibility, Emergency Protective Measures</span></span></span></h1>
<h1><span><span><span>Reference<span>:</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></h1>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Summary</span>:<span> </span></strong>In response to Hurricane Wilma, Mount Sinai Medical Center (Applicant) incurred costs for activating its facility as a Medical Maintenance Facility.<span> </span>The Applicant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Miami-Dade Office of Emergency Management (OEM) prior to the disaster.<span> </span>The Applicant’s facility was intended to maintain the health, safety, and well being of individuals who were dependent on oxygen or electricity dependent during a disaster.<span> </span>On January 22, 2007, FEMA prepared PW 9137 for $160,040 to reimburse the Applicant for force account labor. <span> </span>At final inspection, FEMA disallowed all cost associated with PW 9137 because the work was considered an increased operating expense.<span> </span><span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>In its first appeal submitted on April 30, 2010, the Applicant requested that FEMA reinstate the reduction of assistance.<span> </span>The Applicant claimed it was operating as a special needs shelter under the MOU with the OEM.<span> </span>On September 30, 2010, the Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the Applicant was not eligible to apply for FEMA funds as the requesting entity under FEMA’s Mutual Aid Policy. </span></span></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>The Applicant submitted its second appeal on October 29, 2010, claiming its facility was operating as a subsection of the OEM and is eligible for reimbursement.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>T<span>he Applicant has not provided</span> documentation that the medical facility is in fact part of the OEM or is eligible to apply for disaster assistance as the eligible applicant.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Issue</span>:<span> </span></strong>Is the Applicant eligible to apply for disaster assistance for emergency protective measures as an agency of the OEM? </span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Finding</span>:</strong><span> </span>No.<span> </span>The Applicant is not eligible to apply for disaster assistance because it was under the operational control of the OEM.<span> </span>The OEM must be the requesting entity for FEMA assistance.<span> </span><span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Rationale</span>:</strong><span> </span>44 CFR §206.223(a)(3) <strong>General Work Eligibility</strong>; DAP9523.6, <em>Mutual Aid </em></span></span><span><span><em>Agreements for Public Assistance</em>, dated September 22, 2004;<em> </em>FEMA <em>Public Assistance Guide</em> (FEMA 322)<strong><em>, </em>Eligibility, </strong>page 33, dated October 1999.</span></span></p>
<p><span><br /></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span>May 15, 2012</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Bryan Koon</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Director</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Florida Division of Emergency Management </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100</span></span></p>
<p><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeal–Mount Sinai Medical Center, PA ID </span><span><span>086-U7KTQ-00</span></span><span><span>, <span>Applicant Eligibility</span>, FEMA-1609-DR-FL, Project Worksheet (PW) 9137</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Dear Mr. Koon:</span></span></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated January 13, 2011, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Mount Sinai Medical Center (Applicant).<span> </span><span>The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $160,040 for emergency protective measures.</span></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Background</span></span></strong></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>As part of the response to Hurricane Wilma, the Applicant incurred costs for activating its facility as a Medical Maintenance Facility during the period of October 24, 2005 through October 26, 2005.<span> </span>The Applicant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Miami-Dade Office of Emergency Management (OEM) to provide such emergency services.<span> </span>Under the MOU, the Applicant’s facility was intended to maintain the health, safety, and well being of individuals who were medically dependent on oxygen or electricity during a disaster.<span> </span>On January 22, 2007, FEMA prepared PW 9137 for $160,040 to reimburse the Applicant for the cost of force account labor for operating an emergency medical shelter.<span> </span>The Applicant submitted force account labor information, lab fees, and other costs.<span> </span>The PW was written for the full number of estimated overtime hours, with the condition that all hours and costs would be verified at project close out. <span> </span></span></span></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>At final inspection, FEMA disallowed all cost associated with the project because the work was considered an increased operating expense and not eligible for funding.<span> </span>The Applicant was unable to demonstrate that it operated as a separate sheltering facility during the disaster.<span> </span>All force account labor and other costs for this project were considered an increased operating expense and on </span></span><span><span>May 20, 2009, FEMA reduced PW 9137 to zero dollars.<span> </span>FEMA determination did note that the OEM could submit the Applicant’s expenses for evaluation as mutual aid costs because they were operating under an MOU between the Applicant and the OEM. </span></span></p>
<p align="left"><em><span><span>First Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>The State transmitted the Applicant’s first appeal to FEMA in a letter dated April 30, 2010.<span> </span>The Applicant claimed <span>it was operating as a special needs shelter under an MOU with the OEM</span> and<span> requested that FEMA reinstate </span>$160,040 in funding<span>.<span> </span>On September 30, 2010, the Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the Applicant was not eligible to apply for Public Assistance funds as the requesting entity</span>, as outlined in FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9523.6, <em>Mutual Aid Agreements for Public Assistance.<span> </span></em>The Regional Administrator also determined that costs for emergency protective measures performed by the entry may be eligible if submitted by the OEM as the requesting entity.<span> </span><span> </span><em><span> </span></em></span></span></p>
<p align="left"><em><span><span>Second Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>The Applicant submitted its second appeal on October 29, 2010, which the State forwarded to FEMA on January 13, 2011.<span> </span>The Applicant reiterated the claim in the first appeal that its facility was operating as an agency of the OEM and is eligible for reimbursement.<span> </span>The Applicant contends that the MOU establishes the Applicant as a hybrid entity of the OEM and is therefore eligible to apply for assistance on their behalf.</span></span></p>
<h4><strong><span><span><span>Discussion</span></span></span></strong></h4>
<p><span><span>In Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9523.6, <em>Mutual Aid Agreements for Public Assistance,</em> dated September 24, 2004, “Only requesting entities are eligible applicants for FEMA public assistance.”<span> </span>In the MOU, the requesting entity is the OEM and the providing entity is the Applicant.<span> </span>In accordance with 44 CFR §206.223 (a) <em>General Work Eligibility</em>, “To be eligible for financial assistance, an item of work must: (3) Be the legal responsibility of an eligible applicant.”<span> </span>The Applicant stated that the emergency protective measures performed were at the request of the OEM, and did not demonstrate legal responsibility to independently perform these measures.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>In addition, because the Applicant is a PNP, it is not eligible to apply directly to FEMA for reimbursement of its costs for labor, equipment use, and other supplies.<span> </span>FEMA Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322, dated October 1999) states that “PNP operating costs for providing services are not eligible, even if increased by the disaster event.<span> </span>The ineligible items include labor, material, and equipment costs for providing assistance services to disaster victims, even if the services are not the same as the organization’s basic mission.”<span> </span>However, as determined by the Regional Administrator and in accordance with DAP9523.6, <em>Mutual Aid Agreements for Public Assistance,</em> the OEM may apply for reimbursement of those costs on the Applicant’s (providing entity) behalf.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<h4><strong><span><span><span>Conclusion</span></span></span></strong></h4>
<p><span><span>I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.<span> </span>Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, <strong>Appeals</strong>.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Sincerely,</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>/s/</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Deborah Ingram</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Assistant Administrator</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Recovery Directorate</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>cc:<span> </span></span>Major P. May</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>Regional Administrator</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>FEMA Region IV</span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219577 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219577#commentsEligible Costshttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219574
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">City of Ocean Springs</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">FEMA-1604-DR</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">1055</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-05-15T04:00:00-04:00">Tuesday, May 15, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">059-53520-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span><strong><span>Citation</span>:</strong><span> </span>FEMA-1604-DR-MS; City of Ocean Springs</span></span></p>
<h1><span><span><span>Cross - <span><span> </span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span><span><span><span>Eligible Costs </span></span></span></h1>
<h1><span><span><span>Reference<span>:</span></span></span></span><span><span></span></span></h1>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Summary</span>:<span> </span></strong>Hurricane<strong> </strong>Katrina’s high winds and flood waters caused severe damage to 13 public parks located throughout the City of Ocean Springs (Applicant).<span> </span>PW 1055 was prepared to document damages and associated repair costs.<span> </span>FEMA reduced the repair costs by $10,200 and excessive engineering fees by $4,589 for work completed at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Memorial) as they were deemed ineligible following the final inspection.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>The Applicant appealed this determination on November 7, 2008, and provided additional documentation from their engineering firm substantiating that damages <span> </span>to the Memorial were related to the disaster.<span> </span>FEMA partially approved the appeal on June 10, 2009, for an additional $6,990 in eligible repair costs and $239 in A/E fees deemed reasonable costs. The total amount approved for the work completed at the Memorial totaled $10,998 for eligible work and $2,200 in A/E fees. </span></span></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>The Applicant submitted its second appeal on August 10, 2009, requesting funding in the amount of $7,560.<span> </span>The Applicant reiterates its argument that A/E fees were inappropriately reduced and that the remaining $3,210 in repair costs for soil removal and caulking replacement were related to damages caused by the disaster and necessary to repair as they presented <span> </span>a safety risk.<span> </span>The Applicant provided additional documentation from their engineering firm stating that the repair work was necessary to restore the Memorial site to its original condition.<span> </span>The calculation of the A/E fees based on reasonable costs amounts to $2,842, an increase of $642. The total amount of the partial approval is $3,852.<span> </span>An overview of the costs and appeal activity is included in Table 1.<span> </span><span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Issue</span>:<span> </span></strong>Are additional repair and A/E fees eligible costs?</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Finding</span>:</strong><span> </span>Partially.<span> </span><span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Rationale</span>:</strong><span> </span><span> </span>44 CFR §206.223 (a)(3) <strong>General Work Eligibility</strong>; Office of Management and Budget, <strong>OMB</strong> <strong>Circular A-87 Revised </strong>, Effective May 10, 2004<strong><em></em></strong></span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span>May 15, 2012</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Robert Latham</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Executive Director</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Mississippi Emergency Management Agency</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>P.O. Box 5644</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Pearl, Mississippi <span> </span>39208-5644</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeal – City of Ocean Springs, PA ID 059-53520-00, <span>Eligible Costs</span>, </span></span><span><span>FEMA-1604-DR-MS, Project Worksheet (PW) 1055</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Dear Mr. Latham:</span></span></p>
<p align="left"><span><span><span>This is in response to the letter from your office dated </span>October 1, 2009<span>, which transmitted the referenced second appeal for </span>the City of Ocean Springs <span>(Applicant).<span> </span>The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $7,560 for the repair of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (Memorial) in Ocean Springs. </span></span></span></p>
<p align="left"><strong><span><span><span>Background</span></span></span></strong></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>High winds and flooding from Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 caused damage to the Applicant’s public parks.<span> </span>FEMA prepared PW 1055 to document damages and associated repair costs for thirteen of the Applicant’s parks.<span> </span>Following final inspection, FEMA reduced the repair costs by $10,200 and architectural and engineering (A/E) fees by $4,589 for the Memorial park site as they were determined to be ineligible.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p align="left"><em><span><span>First Appeal<span> </span></span></span></em></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>The Applicant appealed this determination on November 7, 2008, and provided additional documentation from their engineering firm substantiating that damage was related to the disaster.<span> </span>FEMA partially approved the appeal on June 10, 2009, for an additional $6,990 in eligible repair costs and $239 in A/E fees determined to be reasonable. The total amount approved for the work completed at the Memorial was $10,998 for eligible work and $2,200 in A/E fees.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p align="left"><em><span><span>Second Appeal </span></span></em></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>The Applicant submitted its second appeal on August 10, 2009, requesting additional funding in the amount of $7,560. <span> </span>The Applicant reiterates its position that the remaining $3,210 in repair costs for caulking and the replacement of soil were related to damage caused by the disaster and that A/E fees were inappropriately reduced by $4,350.<span> </span>The Applicant provided additional documentation from their engineering firm stating that the soil replacement and caulking repairs were necessary to restore the site to its original condition.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p align="left"><strong><span><span>Discussion </span></span></strong></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>Pursuant to Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.223 (a) <em>General</em>, to be eligible for financial assistance, an item of work must be required as the result of the major disaster event. The Applicant provided additional documentation in the second appeal that the replacement of caulking and removal of soil was necessary as part of the repair of disaster related damage.<span> </span>The repair costs of $3,210 are therefore eligible for Public Assistance funding, increasing the total eligible repair costs to $14,208. <span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>With regard to the A/E fees, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, C. <strong>Basic Guidelines,</strong> a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost.<span> </span>The Applicant claimed A/E fees of $6,500 for work performed at one site.<span> </span>FEMA initially determined that these fees were disproportionately high relative to the total repair costs for the Memorial and allowed only 3 percent of the costs from all thirteen parks for construction inspection fee services. <span> </span>FEMA has reviewed the documentation included in both first and second appeals, and determined that a reasonable allowance for A/E and construction inspection is 20% (17% for A/E and 3% for construction inspection) for the Memorial park site repair cost of $14,208.<span> </span>Therefore, total allowance for these tasks is $2,842 ($14,208 x .20), an increase of $642 in soft costs.<span> </span>The $6,500 A/E cost on a scope of repair totaling $14,208 represents 46% of overall repair costs and is not reasonable for the level of work performed.<span> </span>Reasonable eligible costs, representing 20% of overall repairs costs, have been determined utilizing industry standards and allowable percentages in FEMA guidance.</span></span></p>
<p align="left"><strong><span><span>Conclusion</span></span></strong></p>
<p align="left"><span><span>I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant’s second appeal should be partially granted in the amount of $3,852 (repair costs at $3,210 and A/E costs at $642).<span> </span>By copy of this letter, I am informing the Regional Administrator of my determination in order for him to implement this decision. <span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision.<span> </span>This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206, <strong>Appeals</strong>.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Sincerely,</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>/s/</span></span></p>
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Elizabeth A. Zimmerman</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Deputy Associate Administrator</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Office of Response and Recovery</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>cc:<span> </span>Major P. May</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Regional Administrator</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>FEMA Region IV</span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219574 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219574#commentsEligible Costshttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219553
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/emergency-protective-measures" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Emergency Protective Measures</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Orange County Rescue Mission</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">1810-DR-CA</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">110</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-05-03T04:00:00-04:00">Thursday, May 3, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">059-ULY7A-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><strong><span><span>Citation:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>FEMA-1810-DR-CA, Orange County Rescue Mission, Eligible Costs, Project Worksheet (PW) 110 </span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span><span>Cross-</span></span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Reference:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>Eligible Costs, Emergency Protective Measures, Sheltering</span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Summary:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>Following the wildfires in November 2008, the Applicant provided displaced disaster survivors with food and hygiene kits, and gift cards from local grocery stores, retail stores and gas stations.<span> </span>FEMA prepared PW 110 in the amount of $24,153 for the costs related to food and hygiene kits, first aid kit labels, gift cards and calls to “2-1-1 Orange County”.<span> </span>After final review of the PW, FEMA obligated PW 110 for $6,701, reducing it by the cost related to the gift cards stating that type of assistance came under the authority of the Individual Assistance (IA) Program.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>In its first appeal dated June 17, 2009, the Applicant asserted that during the declared event the services and assistance they provided to individuals were critical to the survivors' ability to recover from the disaster.<span> </span>In addition, the Applicant stated that the aid provided to the survivors was not provided by other FEMA programs and therefore did not constitute a duplication of benefits.<span> </span>On November 5, 2009, FEMA denied the first appeal, stating that the Applicant provided financial assistance directly to<span> </span>individuals; which is under the authority of the IA Program.<span> </span>FEMA de-obligated the remaining $6,701 from PW 110 because pursuant to DAP9523.15,<em> Eligible Costs Related to Evacuations and Sheltering, </em>food and hygiene kits are only eligible as part of congregate sheltering operations.<span> </span>Based on the information submitted by the Applicant, the survivors were not staying in congregate shelters.<span> </span>Additionally, </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>“2-1-1 Orange County” was a free telephone number with a free service that would not have been billed under normal circumstances, so FEMA would not pay for those costs.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>In the Applicant’s second appeal dated January 5, 2010, the Applicant stated that they were requested by Orange County to provide assistance and services to the individuals affected by the fire.<span> </span>Additionally, the Applicant stated that although “2-1-1 Orange County” is a free service, the $3,428 bill was related to the incremental staff required to handle the increased number of phone calls.<strong></strong></span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Issue:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>Are the costs claimed by the Applicant eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance Program? </span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Finding:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>No.<span> </span>Direct financial assistance to eligible individuals is provided through the Individual Assistance Program.</span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Rationale:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>44 CFR </span><span>§206.110<strong> Federal assistance to individuals and households</strong>; DAP9523.15,<strong><em> </em></strong><em>Eligible Costs Related to Evacuations and Sheltering</em> dated April 6, 2007</span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span>May 3, 2012</span></p>
<p><span>Mark Ghilarducci</span></p>
<p><span>Secretary</span></p>
<p><span>California Emergency Management Agency</span></p>
<p><span>3650 Schriever Avenue</span></p>
<p><span>Mather, California 95655</span></p>
<p><span><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeal–Orange County Rescue Mission, PA ID 059-ULY7A-00<strong>, </strong></span></span><span><span><span>Eligible Sheltering Costs</span></span><span>, FEMA-1810-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 110</span></span></p>
<p><span>Dear Mr. Ghilarducci:<br />This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated March 8, 2010, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Orange County Rescue Mission (Applicant).<span> </span>The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $24,153 for direct financial assistance provided to individuals.</span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Background</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>Following the wildfires in November 2008, the Applicant provided displaced disaster survivors with food and hygiene kits, and gift cards from local grocery stores, retail stores and gas stations<strong>.</strong><span> </span>FEMA prepared PW 110 in the amount of $24,153 to reimburse the Applicant for the costs related to food and hygiene kits, first aid kit labels, gift cards and calls to “2-1-1 Orange County”.<span> </span>After final review of the PW, FEMA obligated PW 110 for $6,701, denying the cost related to the gift cards, stating that FEMA’s Individual Assistance (IA) Program has authority for providing that type of assistance.</span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>First Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>In its first appeal dated June 17, 2009, the Applicant asserted that during the declared event the services and assistance it provided to individuals were critical to the survivors' ability to recover from the disaster. <span> </span>In addition, the Applicant stated that the aid provided to the survivors did not constitute a duplication of benefits as it was not provided by any other FEMA programs. <span> </span>On November 5, 2009, FEMA denied the first appeal, stating that the Applicant provided financial assistance directly to individuals, an activity which is under the authority of the IA Program.<span> </span>FEMA de-obligated the remaining $6,701 from PW 110 because pursuant to Disaster Assistance Policy (DAP) 9523.15,<em> Eligible Costs Related to Evacuations and Sheltering,</em> dated April 6, 2007,<em> </em>food and hygiene kits are only eligible as part of congregate sheltering operations.<span> </span>Based on the information submitted by the Applicant, the survivors were not staying in congregate shelters.<span> </span>Furthermore, “2-1-1 Orange County” was a free telephone number with a free service that would not have been billed under normal circumstances, so FEMA would not pay for those costs.</span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Second Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>In the Applicant’s second appeal dated January 5, 2010, the Applicant stated that they were requested by Orange County to provide assistance and services to the individuals affected by the fire. <span> </span>Additionally, the Applicant stated that although “2-1-1 Orange County” is a free service, the $3,428 bill was related to the incremental staff required to handle the increased number of phone calls.</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Discussion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>According to DAP 9523.15, food and hygiene kits may be eligible for reimbursement when they are provided as part of congregate sheltering operations. <span> </span>However, based on the information submitted by the Applicant, the disaster survivors were not staying in congregate shelters but transitional sheltering, such as hotels, motels, or with friends and families.<span> </span>Per DAP 9523.15 Section VII.D, reimbursement for supplies and commodities for displaced disaster survivors in transitional sheltering is not authorized under FEMA’s Public Assistance Program.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>The Applicant, a Private Nonprofit entity, also provided financial assistance directly to individuals by supplying numerous gift cards to the disaster survivors. Pursuant to Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.110 <strong>Federal assistance to individuals and households, </strong>financial assistance provided directly to individuals is provided through the IA Program.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>The Applicant stated that the $3,428 was billed for “2-1-1 Orange County” phone calls was for the additional staff necessary to handle the spike in calls. <span> </span>The <em>Public Assistance Guide</em> (FEMA 322) dated June 2007 (page 54) states that the increased costs of telecommunications (e.g., additional cell phone instruments and fees) are ineligible for reimbursement.</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Conclusion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>I have reviewed all of the information submitted with the appeal and determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.<span> </span>Accordingly, I am denying this appeal.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision.<span> </span>This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, <strong>Appeals.</strong></span></span></p>
<p><span>Sincerely, </span></p>
<p><span>/s/</span></p>
<p><span>Deborah Ingram</span></p>
<p><span>Assistant Administrator </span></p>
<p><span>Recovery Directorate <br />cc:<span> </span>Nancy Ward<br /><span> </span>Regional Administrator <br /><span> </span>FEMA Region IX</span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219553 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219553#commentsReplacement of Police Vehicleshttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219533
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/general-eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">General Eligibility</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">City of Cranston</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">1894-DR-RI</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">577</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-03-01T05:00:00-05:00">Thursday, March 1, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">007-19180-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><strong><span>Citation:</span></strong><span> </span>FEMA-1894-DR-RI, City of Cranston, <span>Replacement of Police Vehicles</span>, Project Worksheet (PW) 577</span></p>
<h1><span><span>Cross-</span></span></h1>
<p><span><strong><span>Reference:</span></strong><span> </span>General Eligibility </span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Summary:</span></strong><strong><span> </span></strong>The Applicant sustained the loss of two police vehicles as a result of flooding from severe storms during the period of March 12- through April 12, 2010.<span> </span>The Applicant’s contractor prepared PW 577 for total costs of $57,556 to replace the two damaged vehicles with new vehicles as opposed to vehicles of equivalent age and value.<span> </span>FEMA determined that the police vehicles could be replaced with similar vehicles and allowed the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) value of $16,085 ($7,785 and $8,300) minus a salvage of $176 for each vehicle.<span> </span>FEMA also factored in the cost for replacement of vehicle graphics ($900), used vehicle transportation costs ($1,600), and direct administrative costs ($2,450) into the PW.<span> </span>On August 24, 2010, FEMA obligated PW 577 for costs totaling $20,683.</span></p>
<p><span>In its first appeal submitted on September 14, 2010, the Applicant requested that FEMA reinstate the reduction of assistance.<span> </span>The Applicant argued that FEMA’s observations that the vehicles appeared to be undamaged was not relevant to the replacement of the vehicles, that used police vehicles are not generally suitable or reliable for continued law enforcement use, and that FEMA should allow the salvage value for the vehicles as recommended by the Applicant.<span> </span>On December 16, 2010, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal and reaffirmed FEMA’s initial determination that the Applicant was eligible for used vehicle replacement, which is in accordance with 44 CFR §206.226(h), <strong>Restoration of damaged facilities</strong>, <em>Equipment and furnishings</em>.<span> </span>The Regional Administrator also concluded that the Applicant did not provide sufficient justification that used vehicles were not suitable or reasonably available, that it was not unreasonable to expect the Applicant to acquire a used police vehicle from out of state, and that FEMA used the total salvage value that was provided by the Applicant.<span> </span><span> </span></span></p>
<p><span>The Applicant submitted its second appeal on February 12, 2011, and reiterates the same position it claimed in the first appeal.<span> </span>The State does not support the appeal.<span> </span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Issue:</span></strong><span> D</span>id the Applicant demonstrate that it could not locate suitable and reliable used police vehicles?</span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Finding:</span></strong><span> </span>No. <span> </span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Rationale:</span></span></strong><span><span> </span>44 CFR §206.226(h), <strong>Restoration of damaged facilities</strong>; DAP9524.10, <strong>Replacement of Equipment, Vehicles, and Supplies</strong><span> </span></span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span>March 1, 2012</span></p>
<p><span>Theresa C. Murray</span></p>
<p><span>Executive Director </span></p>
<p><span>Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency</span></p>
<p><span>Executive Office of Public Safety</span></p>
<p><span>645 New London Avenue</span></p>
<p><span>Cranston, Rhode Island 02920</span></p>
<p><span><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeal–City of Cranston, PA ID </span><span><span>007-191800-00</span></span><span>, <span>Replacement of Police Vehicles</span>, FEMA-1894-DR-RI, Project Worksheet (PW) 577</span></span></p>
<p><span>Dear Ms. Murray: </span></p>
<p><span>This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated March 30, 2011, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Cranston (Applicant).<span> </span>The letter also refers to the second appeal for PW 693 (Protective Gear), which was addressed in a separate letter dated </span><span><span>January 6, 2012.<span> </span>The Applicant requests that the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) fund the full replacement costs of two flood-damaged police vehicles by restoring the disallowed amount of $36,873.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span>Background</span></strong></span></p>
<p><span>The Cranston Police Department sustained the loss of two police vehicles as a result of flooding from severe storms during the period of March 12, 2010 through April 12, 2010.<span> </span>The Applicant prepared PW 577 for total costs of $57,556 to replace the two damaged vehicles with new vehicles as opposed to vehicles of equivalent age and value.</span></p>
<p><span>Following a FEMA inspection of the damaged vehicles, a review of the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) used car cost guide, and identifying 147 police vehicles for purchase nationwide that were comparable in age, condition, and capacity, FEMA determined that the police vehicles could be replaced with similar vehicles and allowed the NADA value of $16,085 ($7,785 and $8,300) minus a salvage of $176 for each vehicle.<span> </span>In addition, FEMA factored in the cost for replacement of vehicle graphics ($900), used vehicles transportation cost ($1,600), and direct administrative costs ($2,450) into the grant.<span> </span>On August 24, 2010, FEMA obligated PW 577 for a total of $20,683.</span></p>
<p><span><em><span>First Appeal</span></em></span></p>
<p><span><span>The Applicant submitted its first appeal on September 14, 2010, which was transmitted by the State to FEMA on September 28, 2010.<span> </span>The Applicant argued that FEMA’s observations that the vehicles </span></span><span><span>appeared to be undamaged was not relevant to the replacement of the vehicles and that used police vehicles are not generally suitable or reliable for continued law enforcement use.<span> </span>The Applicant also argued that FEMA should allow the salvage value for the vehicles as recommended by the Applicant.<span> </span>Support documents included a copy of an estimate of the value for each damaged vehicle from the Applicant’s Fleet Management Division, a copy of a Bill of Sale with vehicle salvage values, a copy of a Self-Insurer Certificate, copies of police incident reports, and a copy of an Invitation to Bid for the purchase of seven police vehicles.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>On December 16, 2010, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal and reaffirmed FEMA’s initial determination that the Applicant was eligible for the cost of used vehicle replacement as opposed to the cost of new vehicle replacement. <span> </span>Pursuant to 44 CFR §206.226(h), <strong>Restoration of damaged facilities</strong>, <em>Equipment and furnishings,</em> if equipment is “damaged beyond repair, comparable items are eligible as replacement items.” <span> </span>The Regional Administrator concluded that the Applicant did not provide sufficient justification that used vehicles were not suitable and did not meet applicable national consensus standards.<span> </span>The Regional Administrator stated that it was not unreasonable to expect the Applicant to acquire a used police vehicle from out of state and to take actions before the purchase to ensure that the vehicles satisfy the Applicant’s criteria.<span> </span>In addition, the Regional Administrator <span> </span>disagreed with the Applicant’s objection that FEMA did not allow a reasonable salvage value for the damaged vehicles given that FEMA used the $352 value that was provided by the Applicant. <span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><em><span>Second Appeal</span></em></span></p>
<p><span>The Applicant submitted its second appeal on February 12, 2011, which was forwarded to FEMA from the State on March 30, 2011.<span> </span>The Applicant reiterates the same position it claimed in the first appeal.<span> </span>Support documentation included an email from the Applicant’s Acting Captain of Inspection Services that states comparable used vehicles in the vicinity of Rhode Island could not be located to replace the damaged vehicles.</span></p>
<h4><span>Discussion</span></h4>
<p><span><span>In accordance with FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9524.10, <em>Replacement of Equipment, Vehicles, and Supplies</em>, “eligible costs are limited to the costs of replacing the destroyed equipment, vehicles, and supplies with the same number of items of approximately the same age, condition, and capacity." <span> </span><span> </span>T<span>he Applicant has not provided</span> sufficient documented justification to support its position that it could not find suitable or reliable replacement vehicles. <span> </span></span></span></p>
<h4><span>Conclusion</span></h4>
<p><span><span>I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the decision is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, I am denying the Applicant’s second appeal.<span> </span><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, <strong>Appeals</strong>.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Sincerely,</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>/s/</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Deborah Ingram</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Assistant Administrator</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Recovery Directorate</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>cc:<span> </span>Don R. Boyce</span></span></p>
<p><span><span> Regional Administrator</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>FEMA Region I</span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219533 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219533#commentsSteam Heat Conversionhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219530
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">City of Cedar Rapids</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">1763-DR-IA</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Multiple Project Worksheets </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-02-17T05:00:00-05:00">Friday, February 17, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">113-12000-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span><strong><span>Citation:</span></strong><span> </span>FEMA-1763-DR-IA, City of Cedar Rapids, Eligible Work, Steam Heat Conversion, Multiple Project Worksheets (PWs) </span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span><span>Cross - </span></span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Reference:</span><span> </span></strong>Eligible Work</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Summary:</span><span> </span></strong>Heavy rains and flooding resulted in ten City of Cedar Rapids (Applicant) owned buildings being flooded up to three feet on lower floors causing extensive damage.<span> </span>Flood waters also severely damaged a central steam generation plant owned by Alliant Energy Corporation (AEC).<span> </span>FEMA prepared multiple PWs to cover disaster related damages to the Applicant’s eligible buildings; however, FEMA denied the funding to convert the Applicant’s undamaged heating system to replace the previously commercially provided steam to city-owned buildings.<span> </span>The commercial steam vendor, AEC, permanently stopped service because it did not have enough long-term contracts to justify continuing to provide service.<strong><span> </span></strong>In its first appeal, the Applicant argued that heat and hot water was required by building codes and standards in all its damaged buildings and that to recover from the disaster the Applicant needed to install steam generation for each of its buildings.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span>The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Applicant’s inability to furnish heat and hot water at its buildings was not caused by the declared disaster, but was a result of AEC’s decision to no longer provide steam service as it was no longer profitable for them. <span> </span>In its second appeal, the Applicant repeated its arguments from its first appeal and provided references to specific PWs: <span> </span>465, 521, 940, 8148, 10285, 10299, 10326, 10342, and 10377.<span> </span>Additionally, the Applicant acknowledges that FEMA never agreed that the facilities, work or cost were eligible.</span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Issue:</span></strong><span> </span>Is the work to convert the undamaged heating system in the Applicant’s buildings from commercially supplied steam to locally supplied steam eligible for funding?</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Finding:</span></strong><span> </span>No.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Rationale:</span></strong> <span> </span>44 CFR §206.223(a)<strong> General work eligibility</strong>; The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, <strong>Section 406, Repair, Restoration, and Replacement of damaged Facilities</strong> <strong>(42 U.S.C. §5172)</strong>.<span></span></span></span></p>
<p> </p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span><span>February 17, 2012</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Mark Schouten</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Administrator<strong></strong></span></span></p>
<p><span>Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division</span></p>
<p><span>7105 NW 70th Avenue</span></p>
<p><span>Camp Dodge, Bldg W-4</span></p>
<p><span>Johnston, Iowa 50131-1824</span></p>
<p><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeal - City of Cedar Rapids, PA ID 113-12000-00, <span>Steam Heat Conversion</span>,</span><span><span><span> </span>FEMA-1763-DR-IA, Multiple Project Worksheets (PWs)</span></span></p>
<p><span>Dear Mr. <span>Schouten</span>:</span></p>
<p><span><span>This is in response to a letter from your office dated November 9, 2010, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Cedar Rapids (Applicant).<span> </span>The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $69,118,138 to convert steam heating systems to stand-alone boilers in the Applicant’s facilities.<strong></strong></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Background</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>In 2008, flooding resulted in extensive damage to ten Applicant owned facilities.<span> </span>Prior to the disaster, the Applicant procured steam heat for the facilities from a private vendor, Alliant Energy Corporation (AEC). <span> </span>FEMA prepared multiple PWs for the cost of disaster related damages to the Applicant’s facilities.<span> </span>Elements of the heating system within the Applicant’s facilities were undamaged by the flooding. <span> </span>FEMA denied funding to convert the Applicant’s heating system to stand-alone boilers to replace the commercial steam heat.<span> </span>After the disaster, the commercial steam vendor ceased providing the steam heat service based upon its own business decision.<strong></strong></span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>First Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span>The Applicant submitted a first appeal in a letter dated January 27, 2010.<span> </span>The Applicant requested funding to provide its facilities another source of heat, such as steam heat provided by an onsite natural gas steam boiler, or conversion of the existing infrastructure to accommodate alternative forms of heat, such as gas furnaces and hot water. <span> </span>The Applicant argued that building codes and standards required heat and hot water in all its damaged facilities, and that the Applicant’s recovery required establishing a new source of heat for each of its facilities. <span> </span>On July 22, 2010, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal.<span> </span>The Regional Administrator determined that the Applicant’s loss of steam heat was not caused by the declared disaster, but was the result of AEC’s business decision to no longer provide steam service.<span> </span>Therefore, funding for undamaged steam heat systems was not eligible.</span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Second Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span>The Applicant submitted a second appeal in a letter dated September 22, 2010.<span> </span>In the letter, the Applicant repeated its arguments from the first appeal and provided references to specific PWs: <span> </span>465, 521, 940, 8148, 10285, 10299, 10326, 10342, and 10377.<span> </span>The Applicant also claimed that the work was eligible as a codes and standards upgrade.<span> </span>The Applicant specifically referenced the 2006 International Building Code regarding maintenance of a minimum indoor temperature of 68 degrees.<span> </span>The Applicant contends that this requirement is necessary to restore the facilities to pre-disaster function and capacity, and is necessary for the restoration of essential government services.<span> </span>In addition, the Applicant stated that FEMA should consider reasonable solutions and alternatives to projects affected by the commercial steam vendor’s business decision.<span> </span>On December 22, 2011, at the request of the State and the Applicant, FEMA and representatives of the Applicant discussed the subject appeal on a teleconference.<span> </span>During the call, the Applicant reiterated that since the pre-disaster condition of its buildings were in compliance with the Building Codes to maintain heat in its buildings, the restoration of the facilities should include the reasonable work necessary to return the facilities into compliance with this code.</span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Discussion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span>Pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §206.223(a)(1), eligible work must “be required as the result of the emergency or major disaster event.”<span> </span>Furthermore, 44 CFR §206.226(d), requires that the costs of code and standard upgrades must “apply to the type of repair or restoration required.” The <em><span>Public Assistance Policy Digest</span></em><span> (FEMA-321; January 2008)</span> clarifies that for facilities requiring repair, upgrade work required by codes and standards is limited to the disaster-damaged elements of the facility.</span></p>
<p><span>In this case, the Applicant did not demonstrate that the steam heat components of the Applicant’s facilities were damaged by the flooding incident.<span> </span>Rather, the Applicant states that damage to AEC’s steam generation facilities resulted in termination of the steam heat services provided by the commercial vendor.<span> </span>As this loss of function is attributable to AEC’s decision to suspend service and not due to disaster-damage to the steam heat components of the facilities, upgrades to replace the undamaged heating systems in the Applicant’s facilities with stand-alone boilers are not eligible for reimbursement through FEMA’s Public Assistance Program.</span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Conclusion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span>I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, I am denying the Applicant’s second appeal.</span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, <strong>Appeals</strong>.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span>Sincerely,</span></p>
<p><span>/s/</span></p>
<p><span>Deborah Ingram</span></p>
<p><span>Assistant Administrator</span></p>
<p><span>Recovery Directorate</span></p>
<p><span>cc: <span> </span>Beth Freeman</span></p>
<p><span>Regional Administrator</span></p>
<p><span>FEMA Region VII</span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219530 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219530#commentsSidewalk and dune crossover repairhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219518
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/reasonable-cost" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Reasonable Cost</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/large-project" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Large Project</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Town of Lantana</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">FEMA-1785-DR</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">1839</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-01-17T05:00:00-05:00">Tuesday, January 17, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">099-39375-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><strong><span><span>Citation:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>FEMA-1785-DR-FL, Town of Lantana, Concrete sidewalk and dune crossover repair, Project Worksheet (PW) 1839.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span><span>Cross-</span></span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Reference:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>Concrete sidewalk and dune crossover repair</span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Summary:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>The Town of Lantana </span><strong><span>(</span></strong><span>Applicant) received funding to repair damages to the concrete sidewalk and dune crossover as a result of Tropical Storm Fay.<span> </span>FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1839 to document damages and estimate the costs incurred by proposed repairs to the sidewalk and dune crossover.<span> </span>The Applicant submitted proposed repair costs in the amount of $117,265 based on a vendor estimate and their direct administrative costs.<span> </span>FEMA reviewed the proposed costs using FEMA’s Cost Estimating Format (CEF) and reduced the eligible amount to $48,985.<span> </span>In its First appeal, January 29, 1010, the Applicant asserts that repair cost estimates to the sidewalk and crossover are reasonable.<span> </span>FEMA denied the appeal stating that Applicant did not provide documentation detailing proposed costs. Therefore, FEMA did not consider the cost estimate to be reasonable.<span> </span>In its second appeal, the Applicant asserts that two bidders responded to the published bid advertisement for the repair of a concrete sidewalk and dune crossovers. . The lowest bidder did not meet stated licensing requirements, as a result the higher bidder was accepted.<span> </span>In addition, the Applicant provided documentation that the work had been completed, including direct administrative costs.<span> </span>The project exceeds the FY 2008 threshold for $60,900 for large projects. Large project funding is based on documented actual costs. Costs must still be reasonable for the work performed.<span> </span>Therefore, a final inspection and reconciliation should be conducted to determine the actual eligible costs. <strong><span> </span></strong><strong></strong></span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Issues:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span>1.<span> </span></span></strong><span>Is the cost estimate proposed by the Applicant reasonable? </span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span> </span>2.<span> </span></span></strong><span>Did the Applicant provide documentation that supported its position?<strong></strong></span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Findings:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span>1.<span> </span></span></strong><span>Yes</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>2.<span> </span>Yes</span></span></p>
<p><span><strong><span><span>Rationale:</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> </span></span></strong><span>44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)</span><span> </span><span>§206.205(b), <em>Large projects</em>; §13.20(a)(5) and (6), <em>Standards for financial management systems</em>; and </span><span><em><span>Public Assistance Guide</span></em><span>, FEMA 322, dated June 2007.</span></span></span></p>
<p> </p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span>January 17, 2012</span></p>
<p><span>Bryan W. Koon</span></p>
<p><span>Director</span></p>
<p><span>Florida Division of Emergency Management <br />2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100</span></p>
<p><span><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeal-Town of Lantana, PA ID 099-39375-00<strong>, </strong><span>Sidewalk and dune crossover repair</span>, </span></span><span><span>FEMA-1785-DR-FL, Project Worksheet (PW) 1839<strong> </strong></span></span></p>
<p><span>Dear Mr. Koon: <br />This is in response to your letter dated March 11, 2011, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Town of Lantana (Applicant).<span> </span>The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) </span><span><span><span>de-obligation of </span>$49,650 in funding for the repair of concrete sidewalk and dune crossovers.<strong></strong></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Background</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>As a result of Tropical Storm Fay, heavy winds and rain damaged the Applicant’s concrete sidewalks and the support system for a dune crossover.<span> </span>Project Worksheet (PW) 1839 was <strong><span>prepared to document the damages and estimate the costs incurred by the Applicant to repair the damaged facilities. <span> </span></span></strong>The Applicant submitted their direct administrative costs and the proposed repair costs based on a vendor estimate for a total of $117,264.<span> </span>FEMA reviewed the proposed costs using FEMA’s Cost Estimating Format (CEF) and reduced the eligible amount to $48,985. <strong><span><span> </span>Pursuant to the Public Assistance Policy Guide dated June 2007, when a project has not been completed at the time of the request, a cost estimate must be used.<span> </span>FEMA uses a cost estimating methodology called CEF for large projects to better estimate the total cost of large projects and projects that are less than ninety percent complete. </span></strong></span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>First Appeal<span> </span></span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>In its first appeal dated January 29, 2010, the Applicant requested that FEMA reconsider the </span></span><span><span>de-obligation resulting from use of CEF and obligate costs based on the Applicant’s original estimate. <span> </span>The Applicant stated that the initial cost estimate was reasonable. <span> </span>On September 30, 2010, FEMA denied the first appeal stating that FEMA prepared the cost estimate using the Cost Estimate Format (CEF) in accordance with FEMA guidelines.<span> </span>In accordance with the FEMA <em>Public Assistance Guide </em>FEMA 332, dated June 2007, FEMA establishes reasonable costs on the basis of several factors. The estimate provided by the Applicant did not contain documentation detailing proposed costs, therefore FEMA did not consider the cost estimate to be reasonable.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Second Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>On March 11, 2011, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (State) submitted a second appeal reiterating its position from the first appeal that FEMA restore funding based on actual costs.<span> </span>The Applicant provided documentation that the work had been bid out and completed at a cost of $98,635 including direct administrative costs. <span> </span>The costs of the project exceeds the FY 2008 threshold of $60,900 for large projects and it is in accordance with the requirements of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §206.205(b), <em>Large Projects</em>. </span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Discussion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>The Applicant’s project originated as a Large project, however the FEMA CEF reduced the total costs.<span> </span>In the second appeal, the Applicant provided documentation demonstrating project completion and actual costs incurred to complete the eligible work.<span> </span>Total costs claimed by the Applicant are $98,209. <span> </span>In accordance with 44 CFR </span><span>§206.205(b), <em><span>Large projects</span></em><span>, FEMA will approve funding for actual costs for Large projects.<span> </span>Costs still must be reasonable for the work performed.<span> </span>Therefore, it is recommended that the appeal be approved and final inspection and reconciliation be conducted to validate the actual eligible costs.<span> </span></span><span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Conclusion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span>I have reviewed all of the information submitted with the second appeal and determined that the Applicant’s second appeal should be granted.<span> </span>By copy of this letter, I am informing the Regional Administrator of my determination in order for him to implement this decision.</span></p>
<p><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision.<span> </span>This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, <strong>Appeals.</strong> <br />Sincerely, </span></p>
<p><span>/s/</span></p>
<p><span><span>Deborah Ingram</span><br /><span>Assistant Administrator</span></span><span><span> <br /><span>Recovery Directorate </span></span><br /><span>cc:</span><span><span> </span><span>Major P. May</span></span><br /><span><span> </span><span>Regional Administrator</span></span><br /><span><span> </span><span>FEMA Region IV</span></span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219518 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219518#commentsDebris Removalhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219517
<div class="field field-name-field-appeal-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">2nd</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-report-type field-type-list-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Report Type:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-appeal-categories field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Appeal Categories:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/documentation" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Documentation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/debris-removal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Debris Removal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fr/appeal-categories/eligibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Eligibility</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-applicant-name field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Applicant Name:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Livingston Parish</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-disaster-number field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Disaster Number:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">FEMA-1786-DR</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-dsr field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">DSR:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">PW 54</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date-signed field-type-datetime field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Date Signed:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-01-06T05:00:00-05:00">Friday, January 6, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-pa-id field-type-text field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">PA ID:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">063-99063-00</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-summary-brief field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Summary/Brief:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span><span><strong><span>Citation:</span></strong><span> </span>FEMA-1786-DR-LA, Livingston Parish, Debris Removal, Project Worksheet (PW) 54</span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span><span>C</span></span></span></strong><strong><span><span><span>ross-</span></span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Reference:</span></strong><span> </span>Debris Removal, Documentation, Eligible Work<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Summary:</span></strong><span> </span><span>Heavy rain and severe wind from Hurricane Gustav damaged trees throughout Livingston Parish (Applicant).</span></span><span> </span><span><span> </span>Hurricane Gustav generated debris including <span> </span>hanging limbs and leaning trees throughout the Parish.<span> </span>FEMA reviewed a 20 percent sample of the documentation provided by the Applicant’s debris monitoring contractors and found that only 16 percent of claimed hangers and 34 percent of the claimed leaners were eligible.<span> </span>During this review, FEMA excluded from the sample any tree tickets that could not be matched to the available photos.<span> </span>In the first appeal, FEMA determined that PW 54 Version 1 should have been obligated at a higher cost share (95 percent) because the initial PW was obligated within the deadline for the PA Pilot Program.<span> </span>FEMA also determined in the first appeal that the ineligible work performed was accurately captured in PW 54 Version 1, and was further supported by additional sampling performed at the State’s request. </span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>In the second appeal, the Applicant requested $16,626,340 to cover the full cost of debris removal for leaners and hangers. The Applicant claims that FEMA’s methodology to derive a percentage of eligible debris removal was flawed and that 89 percent of the debris removal as claimed was eligible.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Issues:</span></strong><span> </span>1. Did the Applicant provide information to verify that work completed to remove leaners and hangers was eligible? </span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span> </span>2.</span> Is FEMA’s methodology to calculate the eligible cost of debris removal flawed?</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Finding:</span></strong><span> </span>1. No.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>2. No.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><strong><span>Rationale:</span></strong><span> </span>44 CFR §206.224(a); Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9580.204, <em>Documenting and Validating Hazardous Trees, Limbs, and Stumps; </em>and FEMA 325<em> – Debris Management Guide.</em></span></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-letter field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Letter:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span>January 6, 2012</span></p>
<p><span>Mark DeBosier, Deputy Director</span></p>
<p><span>Disaster Recovery Division</span></p>
<p><span>Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness</span></p>
<p><span>7667 Independence Boulevard</span></p>
<p><span>Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806</span></p>
<p><span>Re:<span> </span>Second Appeal—Livingston Parish, PA ID 063-99063-00, <span>Debris Removal</span>, FEMA‑1786‑DR‑LA, Project Worksheet (PW) 54</span></p>
<p><span>Dear Mr. DeBosier:</span></p>
<p><span>This letter is in response to your letter dated January 12, 2011, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Livingston Parish (Applicant).<span> </span>The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) denial of funding for a portion of contractor costs for debris removal. </span></p>
<p><span><span>As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that FEMA’s methodology to determine eligibility was appropriate and in accordance with applicable regulations and policy.<span> </span>Based on a comprehensive and independent review and analysis of the data submitted with the appeal, FEMA has determined that the Applicant’s contractor completed ineligible debris removal work.<span> </span>This determination is documented by photographs, daily reports, and FEMA site visit logs.<span> </span>This is further supported by the additional random sampling performed at GOHSEP’s request.<span> </span>Therefore, the appeal is denied.<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Please inform the Applicant of my decision.<span> </span>This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR <span> <span>§206.206, <span><strong>Appeals</strong>.</span></span><span> </span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span>Sincerely, </span></p>
<p><span>/s/</span></p>
<p><span>Elizabeth Zimmerman</span></p>
<p><span>Deputy Associate Administrator</span></p>
<p><span>Office of Response and Recovery</span></p>
<p><span>Enclosure</span></p>
<p><span>cc:<span> </span>Tony Russell</span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>Regional Administrator</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span> </span>FEMA Region VI</span></span></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-analysis field-type-text-long field-label-above clearfix"><div class="field-label">Analysis:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong><span><span>Background</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>High winds and heavy rains caused by Hurricane Gustav damaged and downed trees resulting in widespread vegetative debris throughout Livingston Parish (Applicant), blocking the Applicant’s roadways and creating a threat to public health and safety. The Applicant contracted with International Equipment Distributors, Inc. (IED) for debris removal and Professional Engineering Consultants Corporation (PEC) to monitor the debris removal.<span> </span>The Applicant participated in the Pilot Program, and FEMA reviewed and approved its Debris Management Plan, providing the Applicant an additional 5 percent federal cost share for eligible debris removal.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>FEMA prepared PW 54 Version 0 for $2,892,893for the removal of 289,405 cubic yards (CY) of debris removed from the right-of-way (ROW) from September 9, 2008, to November 12, 2008 and direct administrative costs.<span> </span>FEMA awarded PW 54 on December 24, 2008, at the increased federal cost share of 95 percent.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Between September 22, 2008, and December 18, 2008, IED removed hazardous trees and hazardous hanging limbs.<span> </span>FEMA did not include this work in PW 54 Version 0 at the time of obligation because the Applicant had not provided sufficient documentation.<span> </span><span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>FEMA’s Initial Validation of Leaners and Hangers</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>On July 21, 2009, the Applicant submitted the contract cost documentation for the work to remove hazardous trees and hanging limbs.<span> </span>FEMA personnel from the Louisiana Recovery Office (LRO) performed a validation review of the eligibility of the work and claimed costs. The documentation provided by the Applicant included over 4,300 tree (load) tickets and 108,000 photographs of the trees prior to and following the work performed.<span> </span>These included photographs of limbs and stumps used to document their size.<span> </span>The applicant claimed the removal of 88,892 hazardous hanging limbs at a cost of $16,252,085 and 1,349 hazardous trees for $396,100.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Between July 28 and August 13, 2009, FEMA reviewed a 20 percent sample of the documentation supplied by the Applicant’s contractors and performed site inspections.<span> </span>FEMA validated those tree tickets that had photographs documenting the work performed.<span> </span>FEMA evaluated 17,653 of the claimed hazardous hanging limbs and 285 of the claimed hazardous trees.<span> </span>After completing site inspections, FEMA determined that a significant portion of the work that the Applicant performed was ineligible under the PA program.<span> </span>FEMA calculated that only 16 percent of the claimed hazardous hanging limbs and 34 percent of the claimed hazardous leaning trees were eligible for funding.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>PW 54, Version 1</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>Following the validation process, FEMA prepared Version 1 of PW 54 to expand the scope and increase the cost estimate by $4,732,680 for a total amount obligated of $7,625,573.<span> </span>Of the additional $4,732,680, FEMA approved $2,735,007 for hazardous hanging limbs and hazardous trees based on the eligibility percentages determined from the validation process.<span> </span>The remaining additional funding was for additional eligible ROW debris, Temporary Debris Storage and Reduction Site management, and removal of hazardous stumps. <span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>FEMA obligated PW 54 Version 1 on October 13, 2009.<span> </span>Because it was obligated outside the timeframe of the Pilot Program, PW 54 Version 1 was funded at a Federal cost share of 90 percent, rather than the 95 percent used for PW 54 Version 0 under the Pilot Program.</span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Second Validation Using GOHSEP Sample</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>Following obligation of Version 1, the Applicant and the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) asserted that FEMA’s sampling methodology was not a true random sample because it only included load tickets with photographs. <span> </span>GOHSEP then selected a statistically random sample of tickets from the entire population of the load tickets, without regard to whether photographs were available.<span> </span>On November 19, 2009, GOHSEP submitted the new sample and FEMA used it to conduct a second eligibility analysis.<span> </span>FEMA determined that only 13 percent of the hanging limbs and 19 percent of hazardous trees were eligible.<span> </span>Because FEMA had already written and obligated PW 54 Version 1 for the 16 percent and 34 percent eligible amounts, FEMA agreed to accept the original and higher funding amount as the basis for payment.</span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>First Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>In its first appeal, the Applicant contested two issues: (1) FEMA’s decision to fund PW 54 Version 1 at 90 percent federal cost share rather than 95 percent under the Pilot Program, and (2) FEMA’s methodology for evaluating the eligibility of the debris removal work performed.<span> </span>FEMA determined that since PW 54 was originally awarded on December 24, 2008, prior to the Pilot Program deadline, that PW 54 Version 1 was also eligible for the 95 percent Federal cost share; therefore, FEMA approved that part of the first appeal. </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>FEMA also determined that its review of the Applicant’s documentation was adequate to determine the eligible amount of work performed, and that the ineligible work performed was accurately documented in the preparation of PW 54 Version 1.<span> </span>The Regional Administrator determined that FEMA had appropriately reviewed all documentation, including load tickets, photographs, and daily reports from the Applicant’s monitoring contractor, and conducted site inspections of trees and stumps to validate eligible work for reimbursement.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Second Appeal</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>In its second appeal, the Applicant maintained its initial claim that it was held to an unfair documentation standard and that FEMA made data entry, sampling, and analysis errors that led to inappropriate reductions in funding.<span> </span>The Applicant further claimed that FEMA’s methodology to derive a percentage of eligible debris removal was fundamentally flawed and that 89 percent of the debris removal as claimed was eligible.<span> </span>Disaster Assistance Fact Sheet 9580.204, <em>Documenting and Validating Hazardous Trees, Limbs, and Stumps,</em> dated August 2, 2009, states, “FEMA will approve 100 percent funding for the applicable scope of work if it validates at least 80 percent of the sample of work items.”<span> </span>The Applicant claimed that 89% of the work is eligible, and requested reimbursement of $16,626,340 to cover the full cost of debris removal for leaners and hangers.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Discussion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>In the review of this second appeal, FEMA evaluated the specific issues raised by the Applicant.<span> </span>These issues included:</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span><span>Methodology employed by FEMA to sample the documentation and compliance with FEMA policy.</span></p>
<p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span><span>Accuracy of FEMA eligibility percentage calculations.</span></p>
<p><span><span>·<span> </span></span></span><span>Specific eligibility determinations made by FEMA as part of the sample.</span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Documentation Review and Sampling Methodology</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>In its second appeal, the Applicant argued that FEMA applied an unfair standard for documentation by only including tickets with corresponding photographs in the eligibility sample.<span> </span>The Applicant and GOHSEP repeatedly pointed out that photographs are not required as documentation of eligibility, but are merely listed as one of several ways that eligibility can be documented. </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>When FEMA calculated the percentage of eligible debris removal based on the eligible amount in the 20 percent sample, FEMA did not consider any items ineligible due to a lack of photographs.<span> </span>Rather, they simply were not included in the sample population.<span> </span>Therefore, tickets that could not be associated with photographs did not influence the eligible percentage.<span> </span>Using the photographs provides more information from which an eligibility determination could be made, and the photographs would be as likely to show eligible work as ineligible work.<span> </span>While excluding a category of items from a sample (i.e. tickets without photographs) would result in a sample that is no longer technically random, FEMA found no evidence to suggest that excluding the tickets from the sample would skew the results.<span> </span>The Applicant did not present any evidence to suggest that a higher percentage of eligible work would have been found in the tickets without photographs. </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>This conclusion is also supported by the second sampling, which was performed at the request of GOHSEP.<span> </span>For this sampling, GOHSEP created a statistically random sample of 20 percent of the load tickets.<span> </span>FEMA then reviewed the eligibility of these load tickets without excluding any tickets for any reason.<span> </span>No tickets were removed from this sample even if photographs associated with the tickets were unavailable.<span> </span>Using this sample population, FEMA found only 13 percent of the hangers and 19 percent of the hazardous tree to be eligible, lower percentages than the original sample.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>While photographs are not required in order to document eligibility, in this case it was appropriate for FEMA to use the photographs submitted as a basis for determining eligibility for the sample.<span> </span>Other forms of documentation, such as debris load tickets, also can be used to document eligibility.<span> </span>However the information provided by the Applicant is contradictory as to how its monitoring contractors documented eligibility.<span> </span>For example, a letter to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor from Mr. Tony Arikol, President of PEC, indicates that debris load tickets were used to document all work performed rather than only eligible work; however, PEC’s contract with the Applicant states “[t]he primary function of the Loading Site Monitors is to issue debris load tickets for eligible debris cleared and to provide documentation as required by FEMA reimbursement requirements.”<span> </span>Furthermore, the Applicant’s Tree Monitor Reports include multiple examples that call into question the eligibility of the work performed, including the removal of dead trees and trees on private property.<span> </span>Given the discrepancies in how and when debris monitors were documenting eligible work, the load tickets cannot be relied upon to accurately document eligibility in this case.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>In the second appeal, the Applicant cited several examples of work that FEMA had found ineligible during the review, and claimed that the evidence supported the eligibility of these items.<span> </span>However, as part of the second appeal analysis, an independent review of the photographs and Daily Hazardous Tree Monitor Reports submitted by the Applicant supported FEMA’s original eligibility determinations.<span> </span>For example, many photographs of limbs, taken to demonstrate the diameter of branches cut, clearly show an entire limb with no breaks, and therefore would not have been “hazardous hangers.”<span> </span>Other photographs clearly show limbs cut down for reasons unrelated to hurricane damage, such as rot.<span> </span>None of the photographs examined as part of the second appeal demonstrated eligible work beyond that already identified by FEMA in the initial review.<span> </span><em></em></span></span></p>
<p><em><span><span>Eligibility Calculations</span></span></em></p>
<p><span><span>In its second appeal, the Applicant claimed that FEMA made multiple data entry mistakes and analysis errors in its Validation Results spreadsheet.<span> </span>The claimed data entry errors consisted of 23 duplicated tree tickets and a number of limb cuts that did not match the number of limb cuts listed on tree tickets or the contractor’s invoice summary spreadsheet.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>In support of its appeal, the Applicant included a spreadsheet comparing FEMA’s Validation Results spreadsheet with the Invoice Summary spreadsheet submitted by the Applicant’s contractor.<span> </span>The comparison spreadsheet detailed a number of discrepancies between the contractor and FEMA spreadsheets.<span> </span>The Applicant’s review assumed that all tree <span>cuts</span> identified on each tree <span>ticket</span> were validated by FEMA and that the number of cut limbs listed on the FEMA’s spreadsheet was recorded directly from the corresponding tree ticket.<span> </span>However, FEMA’s methodology differed from the Applicant’s understanding.<span> </span>FEMA attempted to validate the total number of eligible cuts on a given tree rather than on an entire ticket.<span> </span>In many instances, tree tickets recorded cuts from multiple trees.<span> </span>In other cases, the monitor’s record of the number of cuts from a particular tree began on a particular ticket and carried over onto subsequent ticket(s).<span> </span>Where this occurred, FEMA validated all cuts for a particular tree recorded on multiple tree tickets.<span> </span>On its spreadsheet, FEMA attributed the total number of cuts to the first tree ticket used to document the cuts for that tree.<span> </span>Similarly, if a selected tree ticket showed cuts from a tree that had been carried over into the sample tree ticket, those cuts were not included in the review.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>For this reason, the total number of <span>cuts</span> validated under a particular <span>ticket</span> number might be either more or less than the number of <span>cuts</span> recorded on that <span>ticket</span>.<span> </span>Some of the discrepancies noted by the Applicant also appear to represent data entry errors by FEMA.<span> </span>Given that the total hanger count identified by the Applicant differed from FEMA’s count by only 25 hangers out of more than 17,000 total hangers, a difference of approximately 0.1 percent, the impact of any potential data entry errors is negligible.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>In preparing the second appeal, the Applicant used a version of the Validation Results spreadsheet dated August 27, 2009; however, in preparing PW 54 Version 1, FEMA used a version of the spreadsheet dated September 10, 2009.<span> </span>The August 27, 2009, document included 23 duplicate tree tickets as identified by the Applicant.<span> </span>It appears that this version of the spreadsheet was a working document and not the final document used to determine the eligibility percentage in PW 54 Version 1.<span> </span>The final Validation Results spreadsheet dated <br />September 10, 2009, does not contain the identified duplicate tree ticket entries.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><strong><span><span>Conclusion</span></span></strong></p>
<p><span><span>Based on a comprehensive and independent review and analysis of the data submitted with the appeal, FEMA has determined that the Applicant’s contractor completed ineligible debris removal work.<span> </span>This determination is documented by photographs, daily reports, and FEMA site visit logs.<span> </span>FEMA’s methodology to review the Applicant’s documentation was appropriate and accurate, and is further supported by the additional random sampling performed at GOHSEP’s request.<span> </span>Therefore, the second appeal is denied.</span></span></p></div></div></div>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:57:36 +0000femaSuperUser219517 at https://www.fema.govhttps://www.fema.gov/fr/appeal/219517#comments